Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Organized States]

Stealth is the main issue with F-35.

If they'd just made a mega F-18C/D it would be fine.

That's what makes it so wildly expensive, not really entirely Lockheed's fault, if anyone is going to be blamed for delays, BAE needs to get hit as well.

[Triplebaconation]

Stealth is probably a small percentage compared to software.

[Rich and Corporations]

Stealth is probably a small percentage compared to software.

software is probably a small percentage compared to incompetence

[Triplebaconation]

Lockheed is incredibly competent.

[Gallia-]

Stealth is probably a small percentage compared to software.

F-22 syndrome. ):

Muh millions of lines of code

[Imperializt Russia]

You can use newer types of 30mm ammunition instead of using a big gun that fires really slow and weights more than most 30mm cannons.

I hope you don't try to use this for CAS.

Why not? Why not take an upengined 'Hawg and fit a larger cannon on it?

Because it's already built around the Avenger, but fitting a larger cannon would be very difficult. You'd probably need a new aircraft.
As close as you might get would be uprating to 40mm Super, which is modified 30mm ammunition. But you'd still need a bigger gun itself.

Becuase not everything in NS has to be lolpowerfuldeadly. Not to mention the fact you have your own troops that will likely be exposed to it one way or another.

Conscripts can be replaced, the hostiles will to fight once they see their forests destroyed and their families killed by chemical weapons can't.

I'm joking of course, but making a less toxic agent orange seems a bit like issuing someone a license to carry a gun, but not bullets. There isn't anything humane about leveling a forest, so why try and make it?

Agent Orange was not intended as a chemical weapon and was not intended to be lethally toxic to humans.

[Organized States]

Stealth is probably a small percentage compared to software.

F-22 syndrome. ):

Muh millions of lines of code

Doesn't the F-35 have like 10 million lines of code?

[Imperializt Russia]

I thought it was more, like triple-digit millions.

[Organized States]

I thought it was more, like triple-digit millions.

Really? Jesus, that's a lot of code. I can't imagine the time that it would take to right that much code.

[Gallia-]

I heard it was actually trillions of lines of code.

According to Fox News, approximately 60 Lockheed employed programmers committed ritual suicide to the silicon gods to ensure that it was all done in a timely fashion, using their own souls to generate all the code necessary. Now it's being picked through with a fine toothed comb to make sure that Beelzebub didn't miss a bracket.

[Purpelia]

I heard it was actually trillions of lines of code.

According to Fox News, approximately 60 Lockheed employed programmers committed ritual suicide to the silicon gods to ensure that it was all done in a timely fashion, using their own souls to generate all the code necessary. Now it's being picked through with a fine toothed comb to make sure that Beelzebub didn't miss a bracket.

That's actually more common than our industry likes to admit. It's also one of the reasons some projects tend to be so... shall we say schizophrenic at times. As sacrifices go round there is a real danger that your interns run out so you have to start using members of the original programing team to fill the gaps. Do that to often and you end up loosing your core team and thus the project tends to lose track of its original direction. That's how we got the interface change that came with the 2010 MS Office.

[Gallia-]

I heard it was actually trillions of lines of code.

According to Fox News, approximately 60 Lockheed employed programmers committed ritual suicide to the silicon gods to ensure that it was all done in a timely fashion, using their own souls to generate all the code necessary. Now it's being picked through with a fine toothed comb to make sure that Beelzebub didn't miss a bracket.

That's actually more common than our industry likes to admit. It's also one of the reasons some projects tend to be so... shall we say schizophrenic at times. As sacrifices go round there is a real danger that your interns run out so you have to start using members of the original programing team to fill the gaps. Do that to often and you end up loosing your core team and thus the project tends to lose track of its original direction. That's how we got the interface change that came with the 2010 MS Office.

[New Hayesalia]

My own glorious RAAF will be recieving the F35- maybe one day. It's an odd choice to me, considering that our current FA-18s were the product of choice after the Mirage due to the fact of it's dual-engine build and physical durability.

The dual-engine is a cost factor- the F-16 was eliminated for selection because losing the single engine equaled probably losing a plane, which isn't financially viable in an Air Force of about 100 combat planes. The F-35 is one of those single-engined planes. The durability factor is due to the fact that remote Australian airfields aren't exactly the best-kept runways- this took the F-15 out of the running- but an F-18 designed for carrier ops could do it well. The F-35A has this issue too.

This report gives a very good outline of a very problematic child.

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html


Also, any opinions on this Air Force Ensign?

[Organized States]

My own glorious RAAF will be recieving the F35- maybe one day. It's an odd choice to me, considering that our current FA-18s were the product of choice after the Mirage due to the fact of it's dual-engine build and physical durability.

The dual-engine is a cost factor- the F-16 was eliminated for selection because losing the single engine equaled probably losing a plane, which isn't financially viable in an Air Force of about 100 combat planes. The F-35 is one of those single-engined planes. The durability factor is due to the fact that remote Australian airfields aren't exactly the best-kept runways- this took the F-15 out of the running- but an F-18 designed for carrier ops could do it well. The F-35A has this issue too.

This report gives a very good outline of a very problematic child.

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

I would take Air Power Australia with a grain of salt, considering all of their double-standards and bias. The whole single engine crapping out thing is kind of untrue, as Sweden has the Gripen, and the Viggen both of which had had to take off from a short amount of crappy runway, and that worked out rather well in the end.

[Imperializt Russia]

The likelihood of losing one engine is minute, else no country would ever use a single-engine aircraft.
Incurring damage severe enough to claim an engine is probably severe enough to knock you out of the sky anyway.

[The Corparation]

I thought it was more, like triple-digit millions.

Really? Jesus, that's a lot of code. I can't imagine the time that it would take to right that much code.

Its cut down by the fact they have a shitload of people working on it. The harder part is stitching all the pieces together without any major nasty bugs cropping up.

[Organized States]

Really? Jesus, that's a lot of code. I can't imagine the time that it would take to right that much code.

Its cut down by the fact they have a shitload of people working on it. The harder part is stitching all the pieces together without any major nasty bugs cropping up.

Probably, still, that's a lot of work for everyone.

[Sanctus saxa]

The likelihood of losing one engine is minute, else no country would ever use a single-engine aircraft.
Incurring damage severe enough to claim an engine is probably severe enough to knock you out of the sky anyway.

Engine redundancy is typically to protect against mechanical failures in the engine, not necessarily enemy fire. This was especially important during the early days of jet technology, as it was not uncommon to have an engine flame out. Even though we have advanced considerably since then, it is still worth acknowledging the possibility of failure.

[Spirit of Hope]

The likelihood of losing one engine is minute, else no country would ever use a single-engine aircraft.
Incurring damage severe enough to claim an engine is probably severe enough to knock you out of the sky anyway.

Engine redundancy is typically to protect against mechanical failures in the engine, not necessarily enemy fire. This was especially important during the early days of jet technology, as it was not uncommon to have an engine flame out. Even though we have advanced considerably since then, it is still worth acknowledging the possibility of failure.

It is worth acknowledging the possibility. However it isn't worth saying that the possibility of an engine failure is a huge design flaw with single engine fighters. The benefits far outweigh the disadvantage, especially given the modern reliability of jets.

[New Emphillon]

Here's a question for all of you: would it be possible to make the YF-23 more agile, while still maintaining its stealth?
I think it would be a little hard, considering that the aircraft features fixed engine nozzles and that the heat from the from the engines are dissipated through heat-ablating tiles similar to the B-2 Spirit's.

[Gallia-]

Engine redundancy is typically to protect against mechanical failures in the engine, not necessarily enemy fire. This was especially important during the early days of jet technology, as it was not uncommon to have an engine flame out. Even though we have advanced considerably since then, it is still worth acknowledging the possibility of failure.

It is worth acknowledging the possibility. However it isn't worth saying that the possibility of an engine failure is a huge design flaw with single engine fighters. The benefits far outweigh the disadvantage, especially given the modern reliability of jets.

Yeah that's why F-22 is single engine.

[Voltrovia]

Here's a question for all of you: would it be possible to make the YF-23 more agile, while still maintaining its stealth?
I think it would be a little hard, considering that the aircraft features fixed engine nozzles and that the heat from the from the engines are dissipated through heat-ablating tiles similar to the B-2 Spirit's.

Well, the final F-22 that rolled of the production line at Dobbins ARB was far more advanced and developed than the YF-22 from which it had been derived, so I s'pose that with a decade of work on every aspect of the aircraft's design, like the F-22 had, features would have been introduced to improve the YF-23's agility without stealth losses.

That said, I agree with you that the areas for actual improvement without a significant redesign of the mounting of the propulsion system. IIRC the heat-ablating tiles reduced IR dramatically, so they'd have to stay, as would the fixed nozzles because of the tiles and the engine structure.

It's a major design change but foreplanes could possibly be added without significant problems for the stealth profile (visual or otherwise) of the aircraft or its aerodynamics.

[Voltrovia]

Its cut down by the fact they have a shitload of people working on it. The harder part is stitching all the pieces together without any major nasty bugs cropping up.

Probably, still, that's a lot of work for everyone.

The number I heard was nine million lines. Anyway, the project has been behind on the software aspects of its design for some time. I think that the 2014 NDAA had a provision for getting something done about it however.

[Rich and Corporations]

Lockheed is incredibly competent.

Lockheed perhaps.

But what about the DoD?
You've goldplated it, but how about adding another layer of gold?

[United states of brazilian nations]

It is worth acknowledging the possibility. However it isn't worth saying that the possibility of an engine failure is a huge design flaw with single engine fighters. The benefits far outweigh the disadvantage, especially given the modern reliability of jets.

Yeah that's why F-22 is single engine.

because obviously the F-22 isn't an air superiority fighter and totally doesn't need two engines to go faster.

single engine configuration is advantageous it in light, small fighters (usually with multirole capability, since air superiority fighters do a much better job in the air) designed to be cheap-as-fuck, with low maintenance costs. see: MiG-21, F-16, JAS-39.

single engine = lower cost, lower maintenance cost, lower fuel consumption (usually). these are exactly the main reasons why FAB chosen the Gripen instead of the Super Hornet or Rafale (excluding political ones; the Super Hornet was the favorite until our president became upset due to that US-spying-the-others thing. damn politics.), given our government doesn't exactly like to fund the military. they prefer to fund their own wallets instead